Commons Sitting of 21 September 1841

MINUTES.
New Members. Earl of Lincoln, for South Notts; W. Busfeild, Esq., for Bradford.
Bills. Read first time: — Expiring Laws; Poor-law Commission Continuance.—Head third time:—Navy Pay.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Greenall, from Wigan, for Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. Clay, from Hackney, and by Mr. P. M. Stewart, from Paisley, for Inquiry into present Distress.—By Mr. Wakley, from Pagham, for the Repeal of the New Poor-law.

VACATION OF SEATS—MEMBER FOR RIPON.
Sir T. Wildebegged to repeat to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the question which had been put the night before, why it was that a new writ had not been issued for the borough of Ripon, in the place of the right hon. Gentleman, who had been appointed to the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
Sir R. Peeldid not perceive, that, according to his interpretation of the act, it was necessary for any Gentleman to whom office had been offered to vacate his seat in Parliament until the completion of the formal proceedings which might be considered to constitute the formal appointment. If hon. Gentlemen were to be compelled to vacate their seats before there was a bonâ fide acceptance of the office which they had been offered, and before the appointment was completed, the greatest inconvenience might be sustained by Gentlemen who, after having an offer made them, and having thereupon vacated their seats, had the offer, from some cause or other, revoked. As, however, in the present case, the formal instruments had advanced to such a stage as practically to preclude a revocation of the offer, if the hon. Member opposite thought proper to move a new writ for Ripon, he should make no sort of objection to the motion.
Sir Thomas Wildesaid: Nothing that ever fell from the right hon. Baronet gave me more regret than the statement which he has just made, sanctioning principles which will, in my judgment, go far to destroy the independence of this House, As the issuing of the writ is no longer opposed, I should have been content to have made the motion without adding a single word, because, in bringing the matter under the attention of the House, I had no desire to

675
make anything like an attack upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but merely to vindicate the authority, consistency, and independence of this House. But the weight and authority which attaches to the speeches of the right hon. Baronet in this House, makes principles if erroneous, and supposed to be deliberately asserted by him, very dangerous to the country; and the circumstances under which he has now spoken, will induce an impression, that he has uttered sentiments which have the sanction of his deliberate judgment. But I am persuaded, that neither the language nor object of the statute of Anne can have been considered by him, and that the Parliamentary course and usage ever since the statute passed must have been entirely overlooked by him, and that he is utterly unacquainted with the clear and strong opinions expressed by several of the hon. Gentlemen now sitting around him when they occupied seats on this side of the House, utterly at variance with those which the right hon. Baronet now professes to entertain. I am satisfied, that a very short investigation would convince the House and the right hon. Baronet, that those opinions he has pronounced are inconsistent alike with the statute, with the Parliamentary usage, and the integrity of the House. There is not the slightest foundation for the proposition that any more formal act of acceptance of an office under the Crown is necessary to vacate the seat, than the announcement of the fact to this House by the first Minister of the Crown, confirmed by the statement of the Member himself; and I am prepared to satisfy the House, that it is quite immaterial whether the place is conferred by patent or in any other mode; and when the right hon. Gentleman, the late Member for Ripon, contended that it was necessary to the vacating of the seat, that the patent granting the office should be issued and accepted, he entirely overlooked the convenience and safety of several of the hon. Gentlemen around him, all of whom, acting contrary to his view, have treated their intimation of acquiescence to the first Lord of the Treasury in the offer made to them of their respective appointments as an acceptance by them of such appointments within the meaning of the act of Parliament, and as having vacated their seats, and acting upon such conviction, have procured themselves to be re-elected by their several constituencies;
676
but if the opinions of the right hon. Baronet and the late Member for Ripon be correct, those hon. Gentlemen will have to go back to their constituents again, for many of their patents are not sealed at the present moment; and the right hon. Member for Dorchester will have the happy opportunity for another oratorical display in his ingenious misapprehension of some of the dinner speeches which may be delivered in the mean time. The conduct of these hon. Gentlemen, acting with the concurrence of the right hon. Baronet, manifests the real opinion entertained by that side of the House. The case put by the right hon. Baronet justly leads to the very opposite conclusion to that which he professes to have drawn. He says some act of formal acceptance in writing ought to be the foundation for the vacating the seat of the Member, and that some solemn act should be done by the Crown lo secure to the Member the certainty of the office the acceptance of which is to deprive the Member of his seat. But surely it is obvious, that a more direct evasion of the statute cannot be imagined, nor a more successful attack upon the independence of Parliament, than that the Crown by its first Minister should make a distinct offer of a place which the Crown has the power of bestowing, and that the Member should declare his acceptance of that office, and yet should retain his seat for any indefinite period, during which it might suit the purposes of the Minister to delay the formal act of appointment, in order that in the interval he might possess the vote of the Member; and should, during that time, effectually control the voter by his fears, that a vote displeasing to the Minister would deprive him of the reward of his corruption. The state of dependence thus produced is utterly inconsistent with the unbiassed discharge of his duty to his constituents, and is the very evil contemplated by the statute, and for which the remedy of sending him back to his constituents was devised. As the motion I am about to make is unopposed, I cannot with propriety trespass at greater length on the attention of the House, for the purpose of calling its notice to the language and object of the statute, and of the Parliamentary construction which that language has received; and I must content myself with solemnly protesting against the doctrines advanced by the right hon. Baronet, and with asserting that it has

677
been the constant course of Parliament, as well in regard of the office of steward of the Chiltern Hundreds, as of every other office of profit under the Crown, to act upon the admission of the Member himself, or any one authorised by him, of his having accepted the office, as a sufficient ground for issuing a new writ, without any inquiry whether the office had been formally bestowed or not. I have, therefore only to move, that a writ be issued for the election of a burgess to serve in this House for the city of Ripon, in the place of the right hon. Sir E. Sugden, Knt., who has accepted the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he had not vacated his seat till the patent was in his hands.
Sir J. Grahamalso stated that he had not vacated his seat until he had kissed her Majesty's hands on his appointment.
Mr. C. Woodsaid, that in the very last report on this subject, a committee of the House—a committee on which the right hon. Baronet next the right hon. Member for Tamworth had sat, if not the right hon. Member himself—was at direct variance with the principle laid down by the right hon. Baronet, in that case, the case of Mr. Wynn, no difficulty had been made in issuing a new writ; yet it was perfectly well known and admitted, that the right hon. Gentleman did not receive his patent of appointment until two months after his re-election. It was most desirable, as Mr. Wynn himself had suggested, that some course should be taken by the House to define what did constitute the acceptance of office. In the case of Mr. Wynn there was no act done before he vacated his seat; all that he had received was an intimation that directions would be given for making out his patent, and he thereupon vacated his seat, the patent itself not being made out for two months after.
Sir R. Peel: I did not concur altogether in the opinion of my right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Ripon, as expressed yesterday, that the completion of the patent was necessary before a new writ could issue. I should have no objection whatever that it should be understood that the tender of an office under the Crown in writing, and the acceptance of it, also in writing, by the person to whom it was offered, should constitute a vacation of the seat. I think there ought to be some record of the transaction, and that it should not be left to rest upon mere
678
conversation. In Mr. Horsman's case, there could be no doubt, that he had written to his constituents, that office had been offered to him, and that he had accepted it. Yet he voted in the Rouse after the date of that letter, and the House did not interfere. In the present instance, I have no hesitation in acceding to the motion for a new writ, as I know the necessary instruments are so far advanced as to constitute an acceptance of office.
Lord J. Russellcertainly thought that the principle stated by the right hon. Baronet might be productive of serious inconveniences to the public, especially in the case of the subordinate Members of the Government.
The new writ was ordered.

THE PROROGATION.
Mr. C. P. Villierswished to ask the right hon. Baronet what was the probable duration of the prorogation of Parliament? The reason why he wished to put this question was, that an hon. Member on the Ministerial side of the House had stated in his place, that nothing that had fallen from the right hon. Baronet ought to lead to the conclusion that Parliament would be prorogued to so late a period as February.
Sir R. Peelbegged to state, that he had made no communication on the subject to any hon. Member who could have made such a remark; he himself had not heard any such remark, and did not at all understand to whom the hon. Gentleman opposite referred.
Mr. Villiers: To the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley.)
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the hon. Member for Finsbury had made such a statement without any authority from him. The hon. Gentleman opposite must be aware, that it was impossible for the hon. Member to give any assurance to the House on the subject.
Mr. Villierssaid, that he had not described the hon. Member for Finsbury to make the statement as upon the authority of the right hon. Gentleman. A doubt had been raised in the public mind on the subject, and it was the object of his question to set it at rest.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he had never heard a question of that nature put to a Minister before. It was one to which he could not, consistently with his duly, return an answer. The period of the meeting of Par-

679
liaraent might depend on circumstances which it was impossible to foresee. He, therefore, should give no opinion whatever on the subject.
Mr. Villiersthought the right hon. Gentleman did say, that if no extraordinary circumstances occurred, Parliament would meet at the ordinary period. They might therefore, he thought, justly infer that it would be in February.

PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEES.
Mr. Ewartrose to move the following resolutions, of which he had given notice: —
"1. That it is expedient that committees on private bills should be approximated, more nearly than they now are, to judicial tribunals, and exempted, as much as possible, from all motives of local and personal interest. And that the responsibility and efficiency of such committees would be promoted by diminishing the number of Members composing them.
"2. That, with a view of attaining these objects, the number of Members composing committees on opposed private bills be reduced to seven.
"3. That such seven Members be appointed by the committee of Selection, after the second reading of such bills. But that previous to such appointment, the committee of Selection do ascertain from each of such seven Members that he is willing to serve, and that he is, neither through his constituents nor himself, personally interested for or against the bill in question; and that in case he is unable to serve, or is interested as aforesaid, the committee of Selection do appoint some other Member to serve in place of him.
"4. That the committee of Selection appoint no Member to serve on more than one such private bill committee at a time."
He believed, that great ignorance prevailed with regard to the transacting of business by Committees on Private Bills. He believed the right hon. Baronet opposite had had many opportunities of seeing the baneful working of the present system of Private Committees; and he appealed to him whether reform was not to be desired in their machinery and construction. In the first place, these committees were appointed principally from the local connection with the subject, and therefore it was impossible that they could be altogether impartial, being interested either through themselves or their constituents. The system of canvassing that went on during the sitting of a committee, was at variance with the justice of the case under the consideration of the committee, and it was discreditable to the character of the
680
House. The committees of the House of Commons were not only partial tribunals, but, from their size, inconvenient for accomplishing the ends of justice. They ought to be purified, and diminished in point of numbers. The remedies which he ventured to suggest, were, in the first place, to propose, that committees should be more nearly assimilated to judicial tribunals. How was that to be effected? By removing as far as possible all motives of partiality. His next desire was to increase the responsibility and efficiency of committees. A body of thirty-five Members had a much more divided responsibility than a body consisting only of seven Members. He proposed, therefore, to increase their responsibility by reducing the number from thirty-eight to seven. The House of Lords had reduced their committees from an almost unlimited number to five, and prohibited any Member, directly or indirectly interested, from sitting. In the year 1838, the Duke of Richmond was examined before the House, and his evidence would be found to confirm all that he (Mr. Ewart) had said. In the same year the present Speaker and the hon. Member for Lancashire, drew up a set of resolutions on the subject, which, having examined, he found to be essentially the same with those he now proposed. Not only were the suggestions he had made founded on reason, but they came before them sanctioned by the House of Lords, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the Chairman of the committee of Ways and Means. How had those rules operated in the House of Lords? Why, it was admitted that they had done great good; and, with respect to that House, he believed they had rendered its committees more effective, and their proceedings much more beneficial. The hon. Member concluded by moving the resolutions of which he had given notice.
The question was put on the first resolution.
Mr. Estcourtthought, that the principle laid down by the hon. Member was good, and he was not disposed to controvert it, but he thought he had taken a wrong mode of carrying it out. He would not deny—but that he entertained considerable respect for the opinion which he knew prevailed, not only amongst many Members of that House, but also very extensively out of doors—that in the con-

681
siitution of committees on private bills,' the principle of representation ought to have due weight. Committees on private bills might be considered under two aspects; first, as judicial tribunals, and, secondly, as inquisitions. They had to inquire as well as to judge. If their functions had been purely judicial, he would accede at once to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, but where the matters brought before them might possibly lead to extensive inquiry, it appeared to him, that a larger number of Members ought to be appointed than if their functions were purely judicial, more particularly, when, in the result of that inquiry, the constituents of the Members might be interested. So long as the committees had been constituted, as formerly, of a very large number of Members, belonging not only to the county interested, but to the neighbouring counties. So long as the Speaker's list had been very large, he would admit that considerable inconvenience arose from the canvassing of agents, but both those evils had been remedied during the two last Sessions of Parliament. He confessed he thought there was very great weight in the arguments of those hon. Members who desired to give that tribunal a representative character. As far, however, as he had been enabled to form an opinion, the amendments of last Session had given general satisfaction. If, after a fair experiment, which could not be afforded in a single Session, the objections urged by the hon. Member should be found to have gained ground, he would then be prepared to accede to his propositions; but as no discontent appeared as yet to exist, he thought that was not a fit time for the hon. Member to press his resolutions. If the same system was preserved in the present as in the last Session of Parliament, and if hon. Members would bind themselves to carry the arrangements into effect, he had no doubt that there would be a most satisfactory result—that no party would be disappointed, and no unnecessary expense incurred. Believing the motion was unnecessary and uncalled for, he should take the liberty of moving the previous question.
Mr. W. Ferrandsaid, that he should support the resolutions, and if for no other reason, because the Members for Bradford had declared on the Hustings, that they would use their utmost endeavours to
682
provide that town with good and wholesome water. This was said in reference to a private bill now before Parliament, and the object of which was to deprive him unjustly of some property, and take away part of the water that belonged to him.
Sir G. Clerkhoped the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Wigan, would withdraw his resolutions, as it was not expedient that the House should, at this period, be called upon to go into the consideration of such a subject. The experiment of last Session had not been sufficiently tried, and that to exclude hon. Members from taking part in an investigation whose constituents might be interested in the subject matter of a private bill, as proposed by the hon. Member, would work positive injustice.
Mr. Ewartsaid, that if the proposition he had made had been founded only upon his own opinion, he should at once assent to the recommendation of the hon. Member for Oxford; but as it was a case on which the public felt very strongly, and as many Gentlemen, of great experience, agreed in his views, and feeling, that, as the House had gone so far, they ought to go still farther, he should take the sense of the House on his motion.
Lord J. Russell: as the hon. Member has declared his intention of taking the sense of the House on his motion, I beg to say a few words in reference to the vote which I intend to give. I agree with my hon. Friend in much that he has stated with respect to the exemption from committees on private bills of local and personal interests, and if any scheme can be devised for giving to those committees a more judicial character, I shall support it. However, though I agree so far as I have stated with the hon. Member, I am not prepared to go the length of saying that local interests should be altogether excluded. I am not prepared to say that, admitting certain local interests, is not a mode by which more information can be obtained, and that more easily in a short time than in the more formal shape of witnesses could be obtained in a much greater length of time. By this mode, and in the form of discussion, more information might be obtained in a short time than in the formal way I have mentioned in a long time. I must, therefore, say, that although I shall vote for the previous question, I do not totally differ in opinion from the

683
hon. Gentleman, and I hope to see still greater improvement effected in the system.
Mr. Aglionbyhoped to see the motion brought forward and discussed in every Session, until greater improvements were effected. While he admitted the right of a constituency to the services of their representative, yet they had no right to have that representative transformed into an interested judge. He thought the best plan which could be adopted would be lo allow the representative to attend before the committee, and give information where he happened to be connected with local interests, and he thought this plan would cause the House to stand higher in public opinion.
Sir R. Peelwas rather sorry that the hon. Gentleman was about to take the sense of the House on this question. In his opinion it would be much better to give a fair trial to the existing system. The public attention had been very strongly called to the mode in which private business was conducted in this House. There was a strong impression throughout the country that there were great abuses in the mode of conducting it. Nothing could tend more to lower the dignity and character of Parliament than an improper mode of conducting the business on private bills, and of conveying the impression that improper influence could be used in carrying them into effect or impeding them. Great improvements had been made under the suggestion of Lord Dumfermline and the present Speaker. It was better, then, to give the present system a fair trial, and not call upon a new Parliament, in which there were so many new Members, who had not yet had the advantage of seeing how the system worked. He did not think it advisable to take the sense of the House at the present moment. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Aglionby) thought that the constituents had the right to the services of their representatives and that it was the duty of the latter to attend and claim to be heard. Now he had had some experience in these matters, and what, he would ask, must be the effect of this, in the case, let it be supposed, of a railroad: let it be supposed that it was the object to defeat the bill. There would then be the representatives of several counties and towns. Then, according to the assumption of the hon. Gentleman, they would be bound to
684
attend, and have a right lo be heard; and then the object being to have the bill postponed, the decision of the committee must be delayed until it would be too late to proceed with the bill. The moment they admitted the right of those persons to be heard, they could not limit the time which they might occupy in speaking [Mr. Aglionby: one hour]. If they approved of the appearance of Members in the character of advocates and witnesses, with a view to sustain the rights of their constituents, the inevitable consequence would be, that the bill they opposed must be lost, and he defied a committee to come in sufficient time to a decision that could expedite the opposed bill through Parliament. If the parties appeared by counsel, there was a difficulty in restraining even them within reasonable limits. He had seen a dreadful consumption of time and waste of money in these matters. He had seen how difficult it was for chairmen to control counsel—how much more difficult to control Members, who would appear with a greater authority than could invest the character of counsel. The unfortunate committee, unless it showed symptoms of yielding to the opposition, would be soon reduced to a despairing quorum, even if they could get a quorum, and at last might throw up the duty devolved upon them in disgust. But then as to the proposal of excluding Members. If the House decided that the representatives of local interests should be prevented from attending committees, it would be indeed a very strong measure, and one that required serious consideration. The establishing of a disqualification or exclusion of Members was a very dangerous principle, and they did not know when once adopted how far it might be carried. After all, their best security must be the integrity of Members, controlled by public opinion. If they said that Members representing local interests should be excluded, they provoked them to assert a right, and to resist, on the part of their constituents, the rule they laid down, and he was very much afraid that they would bring on debates of that nature, by which much time would be consumed, and that the House always listened to with great impatience. He wished the new Members of the present Parliament to have the opportunity of seeing how the present system worked. If, on experience of it, they must despair of improvement, then

685
the hon. Gentleman could come forward with a better chance, at a future time, of effecting the important changes that he now desired.
Mr. Ewartwould have no objection that the whole of his resolutions should be referred to the committee on private business. That would be a fair mode of compromise, and he trusted it would be acceded to by the right hon. Baronet.
Sir R. Peelthought it was highly necessary that the present system should have a fair trial, which had not jet been had.
Mr. Ewartwas perfectly aware that the majority must be against him. Under such circumstances he would, therefore, not waste the time of the House by forcing a division. But he would continue to press them on the attention of the House so long as he had the honour of a seat.
Amendment and motion withdrawn.

PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS IN THE PARKS.
Mr. Rennie: Mr. Speaker—The object of the motion which I am now about to submit to the House, is a remedial and effectual measure for the prevention of those lamentable and unnecessary sacrifices of life, which occur so frequently in the Royal parks of this metropolis. Sir, I trust, if the House will accord to me its indulgence for a very few minutes, I shall be able to show that this subject, involving as it does a deplorable and constantly recurring loss of life requires, and is entitled to the most serious consideration of Parliament. These accidents are not of the nature of those which may be considered extraordinary—every precaution which the most vigilant superintendence can suggest is put in practice—no pains or expense have been spared by the Royal Humane Society in their praiseworthy efforts to protect the lives of their fellow subjects, and yet every returning season exhibits the impossibility of attaining their object by the means at present in use. Sir, I hold in my hand a very interesting statistical document, furnished to me by the Royal Humane Society—it contains a carefully drawn up return of the number of persons who have been drowned in the Royal parks during the last six years; but, before reading this statement, I must beg the attention of the House to what passed at a meeting of that Society, convened especially to lake into consider-anon the expediency and practicability of
686
the measure which I shall conclude by submitting to the House.
"That upon a careful consideration of the danger to which the public is exposed during the bathing and skating seasons of the year, from the numerous accidents of a critical nature which have occurred in the parks, it is the confident opinion of this committee, that the proposed measure is of the utmost consequence, inasmuch as it would effectually secure the public against the dangers to winch it is now most unnecessarily exposed; whilst it would enable the Royal Humane Society to turn its attention to the preservation of life on the river Thames, by appropriating the large annual expenditure now incurred in the parks, with very great advantage to the safeguard of the public, particularly at those places where accidents have lately become so numerous as to require the watchful aid of the Institution, and which its limited income is not otherwise adequate to meet."
I will now, Sir, read to the House, the return of the number, and the nature of these accidents, which I conceive it to be the duty of Parliament to take cognizance of.

DROWNED.

Years.

Hyde Park Bathing.

Hyde Park Ice-breaking.

St. James's Ditto.

Regent's Ditto.

1835

2

7

3

„

1836

2

7

3

„

1837

2

1

3

„

1838

2

2

3

„

1839

2

2

3

„

1840

3

1

5

„

1841

2

1

5

„

15

11

8

„

RECOVERED.

Attempted Suicides.

Suicides.

Years.

Hyde Park.

St. James

Regent's

1835

37

26

4

2

4

1836

19

1

3

10

1

1837

19

5

3

10

3

1838

49

11

10

14

1

1839

34

11

5

12

9

1840

49

5

26

11

3

1841

35

11

8

„

242

54

59

67

21

Total Recovered ‥ 355

Total Drowned … 55

Sir, I trust, that I have shown to the House, that I have requested its attention to no trivial matter—that in little more than five years thirty-four people have met with an untimely end; that these thirty-four individuals, full of health and

687
vigour, thinking only of recreation and amusement, unreflecting and unprepared —were hurried into eternity, and into the presence of their Maker, and shall we be free from blame, shall we be exonerated from a most awful responsibility, if, after the proof which I have adduced, that these calamities cannot be arrested by any ingenious precautions, such as are in use at present, we neglect or refuse to adopt a remedy—a remedy which persons whose study and attention has been given for a long series of years to the preservation of life, tell us is the only effectual means of preventing those shocking and heartrending "occurrences. But, Sir, let me consider the question in a practical shape. By the statement which I have read to the House, it appears, that no fatal accidents have occurred in the Regent's-park water—this, I am told, is in consequence of there being very few deep places; and I will, therefore, say for this present, confine the remedies to the Serpentine and St. James's-park waters. Now, Sir, looking at these two lakes, hon. Members must not suppose, that they are bottomless pits, nor of any depth either impracticable or difficult to fill. I am assured, that the deepest pool in the Serpentine does not exceed twelve or thirteen feet. A very great portion of the eastern end is not more than four or five feet deep, and although I confess I am not prepared to state the exact number of cubic yards of material, that would be required to accomplish my object—thus much I know, that any quantity can be had and laid down at the water's edge at little or no expense. The immense volume of old materials which builders and others frequently find difficulty in knowing where to get rid of, could be brought to some one convenient spot, without cutting up or injuring the walks or drives, and thence conveyed in boats to the places requiring to be made shallow. If a better description of bottom be considered necessary, a coating of gravel, which can be obtained in the park itself, would be laid over the surface of the material which had been used previously. I can believe, that, probably, some bold and adventurous swimmers may say, you would injure our sport. I would ask them how many of those who have been drowned bathing, were swimmers, or persons unable to swim? Sir, the Serpentine has several cold and chilling springs, which I am told produce
688
cramp, and paralyse in an instant the skill and energies of the most expert—that the larger number of casualties are of swimmers, who have sunk from the cause I have mentioned. But Sir, the thousands who are invited, for I say they are, to a certain degree, invited to bathe, by placards indicating the hours at which it is permitted, should be protected, should have the means of cleanliness, which is so necessary for the health of this vast metropolis, made accessible to them without the risk to all, and the certainty of death to a certain number annually. But, Sir, those whose amusement, at a different season of the year, I am also anxious to protect, will admit that their diversion would be much promoted, as it is too obvious to require illustration, that shallow water freezes in much less time than deep, and consequently the ice would bear with a less intensity or duration of frost than it does at present. Sir, great and much to be deplored as the accidents which I have enumerated from the returns of the Royal Humane Society are, it must not be concluded that the evil is not much further extended. Of the 355 persons who have been recovered by medical process, how many are there whose health and constitution have met with shocks from which they never recovered. Sir, I have no wish to exaggerate—no exaggeration is required. But when every expedient has been adopted which skill, ingenuity, and invention can contrive, when every care, vigilance, and superintendence has been exercised by a society, perhaps unexampled in its philanthropic intentions to preserve the lives of its fellow-citizens, and when that society, after a very large expenditure, comes forward and declares that the remedy which I now propose is the only effectual one which that society has heard devised, I think, Sir, that this House will incur a very heavy responsibility if it refuses to adopt the means of preserving the lives of so many of her Majesty's subjects, and when it is considered that her Majesty is herself the patroness of this very society, which now calls upon you to promote its objects. Sir, the right hon. Baronet, in his speech on Thursday last, passed a most just and well-deserved eulogium on the administration of Lord Duncannon, in so far as relates to the improvement of the walks, drives, and plantations of the parks. But, Sir, I have shown a much more important task yet remains to be performed,

689
and I implore the right lion. Baronet to accede to the address which lam about to propose. I entreat of him to consider that the benefits he will confer on humanity by consenting to this measure in the royal parks, will not be confined to those places, for the funds which are now expended by the Royal Humane Society in endeavouring to protect the parks will be transferred to the river Thames, where the accidents which the increase of steam navigation has so multiplied, require a superintendence, to which the means of the society are inadequate. And, Sir, when my hon. Friends on this side of the House shall be reinstated in power, as I am sure they are convinced they will be, some time or other, I should be delighted to hear an eulogy of the right hon. Baronet's administration in this department as well merited as Lord Duncannon's has been. Sir, deducting the suicides, for which I profess to offer no remedy, we have an average of about seven lives sacrificed annually at the shrine of amusement, in places sanctioned by authority—an effectual and practicable remedy is proposed. What can be the objections? if objections there are. I know of none, I can imagine none, but the expense—and will Parliament consent to the sacrifice of life which occurs annually, for the trifling outlay which this work would occasion. Sir, I cannot believe it, but if the remedy is refused, I think it is the duty of this House to take measures for absolutely prohibiting all access to those waters. The law inflicts a punishment on the attempts to commit suicide, and yet you allow the multitude, nay, you invite the multitude to an amusement which is certain death to some of them. I entreat and implore the right hon. Baronet to consent to the address on the grounds of humanity. For, Sir, if this motion be not acceded to, no inference can be drawn, other than that the lives of the public are valued at less than the unimportant sum which I pledge myself that this work would cost. I cannot sit down without expressing my thanks to the House for the patience with which they have listened to me. The hon. Member then moved the following address:—
"That an bumble Address be presented to her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to direct her Commissioners of Land Revenues to take measures for rendering safer the recreations of bathing and skating on the ornamental waters of Hyde-park, St. James's,
690
and the Regent's-park, by filling up the deep and dangerous places, so as not exceeding four feet depth of water, in any of the above-mentioned parks."
Mr. Ewartseconded the motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequertrusted that the hon. Member opposite would not think he was derogating from his claims to merit, for the interest he took in the subject which he had introduced to the House, when he stated his intention to vote against it. It must afford gratification to all those who were interested in the exertions of the Royal Humane Society to hear testimony borne to the great exertions they had made to prevent those fatal occurrences. The hon. Member opposite had described the advantages which would result from the adoption of the plan to which he referred, but he hoped to be able satisfactorily to show some difficulties which would attend the carrying into effect of that proposal. In offering his opposition to the large expense which would attend it, he felt that he was justified upon that ground alone; however, he remembered that in the early part of his life, a great deal of money had been expended in deepening that water, which the hon. Member now sought to render of less depth. He was not able to say what amount of expenditure would be required to effect the object which the hon. Gentleman desired; but taking his own calculation, that it would be no more than for a railway embankment of the same extent, he did not think that he would be justified under the circumstances, in agreeing to that expenditure, for the purpose of lessening the depth of that water, in deepening which so much expense was incurred at a former period. Before these waters were deepened, in consequence of the deposits made in them, they were attended by an offensive smell, which was extremely injurious to health, and annoying, not only to those who went there to bathe, but to the inhabitants of London generally who went there to enjoy the recreation and fresh air which the open spaces in these parks afforded them. The hon. Member must take into account what injury would follow to the community at large, supposing that the filling up of these spaces would be attended with a recurrence of the same effects. With respect to the enjoyment of those who went there to enjoy the manly and invigorating exercise of swimming, if these waters were filled up so as

691
to be made only four feet in depth, would it be practicable for these parties to continue to take that exercise. The consesequence of filling up those places in the: way sought for by the hon. Member would be, to compel those who resorted to those places to bathe, to go elsewhere, to the Thames, or other places, where the same provision was not made to ensure their safely, and the loss of life that would occur would, in all probability, be much greater. For these reasons, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would consent to withdraw his motion, and not place him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) in the situation of opposing it.
Mr. Renniesaid, that the accumulation of mud which occurred formerly had been caused by a sewer, which had since been removed. However, as the motion was opposed, he would consent to withdraw it, but hoped that the subject would receive the attention of the Government, at a future time.
Motion withdrawn.

CONTINUANCE OF LAWS POOR-LAW COMMISSION.
Sir R. Peelsaid, I now rise to move for leave to introduce a bill, of which I have given notice, and the object of which is, to continue in force certain Acts which would expire, either on a certain day named, or at the end of the Session of Parliament, or after a certain period. Upon the whole, having taken into consideration that one part of the bill which I proposed to introduce is likely to undergo discussion, and that the other is not likely to meet with any objection, I believe that it would be more for the convenience of the House that I should introduce two bills, one for the purpose of continuing the present Poor-law commission, and another for the purpose of continuing in force, for a certain period, other expiring laws. I believe that this will better meet the views of those who may be desirous of separating the Poor-law Commission Renewal Bill separately from the other, which is not likely to meet with any discussion or objection. I think it Tight, however, to mention, that whichever course may be adopted, of introducing one or two acts, it will not be competent for hon. Members to move amendments in the ordinary mode, but whatever amendments they may wish to introduce, must be moved in the shape of an instruction to the committee. I think it righ there-
692
fore, to mention, that those who wish to propose amendments, must do so by previously moving an instruction to the committee. I now move for leave to bring in a bill, to continue the Poor-law commission to the 31st of July, 1842.
Motion agreed to.
Sir R. Peel: I now move for leave to introduce a Bill, to continue such laws as will expire within a certain limited period.
Motion agreed to.
Bills brought in, and read a first time.
SUPPLY—MAYNOOTH COLLEGE—EXPLANATION.] On the question that the report of the committee of supply be brought up,
Colonel Acton: I wish to say a few words to the House on a matter personal to myself. I am most anxious to explain that it was my intention to vote against the grant to the College of Maynooth, and I communicated to several friends about me in the House my fixed determination so to do, but having inadvertently gone into the old lobby, I did not discover my mistake until the door was closed. As soon as I was aware of my mistake I remonstrated in the strongest manner against being obliged to record my vote against my principles and my recently expressed intentions, but I was informed that having gone into the lobby my vote was, in fact, given, and could not be recalled. It is most painful to me to vote against her Majesty's present Government, from which we have reason to expect such inestimable benefits to the nation; but I never can conscientiously vote for the grant to Maynooth College. I never intended to vote for it, and I never will. I trust the House will pardon this intrusion, but I felt it due to my own character and that of the constituency I have the honour to represent, thus to explain the apparent inconsistency of my conduct.
Mr. Plumptrebore testimony to the fact that the hon. Gentleman had communicated to him his intention of voting as he had just stated.
Report brought up.

SUPPLY—-NATIONAL GALLERY.
On the vote for the National Gallery.
Sir C. Burrellsaid, he wished to call the attention of his right hon. Friend to an alledged fact which, if it were well

693
founded, showed that pictures were ad-milted to the National Gallery which were a disgrace to it. It was said, that a work of Perugino, sold to Mr. Beckford originally for 40 l. or 50 l., had been bought for the National Gallery out of that gentleman's collection for 800 l. If what had been stated to him were true, the picture would be a disgrace to it. The picture had been so much altered that it had been nearly repainted, and a bandeau, which was formerly on the forehead of one of the figures, had been entirely removed. If, indeed, his information were correct a very indifferent painting had been palmed off on the public at a very large price. His only object in mentioning this was to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet to the subject, that care might be observed in future in purchasing pictures for the National Gallery.
Resolution agreed to.

SEAMEN'S PAY ABROAD.
On the third reading of the Navy Pay Bill,
Captain Berkeleysaid, that by the rate of exchange in the Mediterranean, seamen serving there and paid abroad had been deprived of 4d. on the dollar. He could instance his own ship, the seamen of which when paid at Gibraltar, were charged for every dollar 4d. more than it passed for, He had called the attention of the former Secretary of the Admiralty, to the subject, and he hoped it would not be lost sight of by the present.
Bill read a third time.
LUNATICS.] On the motion of Lord Ashley, the House went into Committee on the Lunatics Bill.
On the first clause being read,
Mr. Wakley said, that the subject of the treatment of lunatics had been much discussed of late, and it seemed to be a general impression that some alteration should be made in the existing law, and that without delay. In the late Session several notices had been given on the subject; amongst these that of the hon. Member for Lambeth, was foremost, but having many other matters to attend to, the hon. Gentleman had abandoned it. Subsequently the hon. Member for Dumfries, gave a notice on the subject, but he did not persevere in calling for an investigation. That which was proposed by the present bill was to continue the existing state of the law for four years. Consider-
694
ing that this question was now much publicly discussed, and that it must be considered at no distant day, the term proposed he thought too long, and that it should be shortened to two years. Though he admitted the existing commission had done essential service to the public and to the cause of humanity, it had fallen short in its effects of what the public had a right to expect. He had yet to learn whether they had furnished all the information that was looked for in the shape of reports, and whether the public had received any great information from their labours. In fact, he only knew of their presenting one report the year after their appointment. He did not think the noble Lord who introduced this bill (Lord Ashley), could say, that full and adequate justice was yet done to patients by the care taken by the commissioners, and the control exercised by them in Lunatic Asylums. No doubt the noble Lord could state truly that the restraint imposed on insane persons was much diminished. At the same time, an outrageous system of restraint was still imposed on lunatics. The powers of the commission only extended to a few miles beyond the metropolis, and had little or no effect in the country at large. He should like to know why one system should be adopted in the metropolis, and another in the country districts. Why should a licence to keep in custody insane persons be granted by commissioners in one place, and by justices of the peace in another? There was one regulation under the existing law so obnoxious to common sense, and so objectionable in point of principle, that it ought not to be sanctioned for a single moment. Suppose one was desirous to keep a lunatic asylum for two persons, he must apply to the commissioners before he could do so; but if he were anxious to take only one under his charge, neither the noble Lord nor his colleagues had any power of visitation as to that patient. So that, in point of fact, in one town fifty persons might be unjustly confined separately, through the atrocious conduct of their relatives, and the commissioners could not visit one of those fifty. He had heard of a case of a lady of family and distinction, which he would mention to the House. A friend of that lady tried to obtain an interview with her, but could not succeed; he tried to communicate by means of writing, but could not succeed; nay, he even endea-

695
voured to find out where, she was confined, but could not obtain a knowledge of the place of her concealment. Was such a system to be sanctioned in an intelligent and Christian land? It was fraught with injustice and inhumanity. He was convinced there were hundreds confined ' in the lunatic asylums of this country, who were as sane as any who sat in that House—indeed more so, in some instances. In the metropolitan districts, the commissioners might liberate persons when unjustly confined, but not until three visits had been paid, and six weeks might elapse before these visits were made. This I was a monstrous state of things, and all the circumstances demanded investigation, He did not mean to say that that investigation, could take place now, but another Session ought not to be allowed to pass without inquiry, seeing the disclosures that had recently taken place regarding, the unwarrantable treatment of patients. The system throughout the country ought to be uniform, and no favour should be shown to the metropolitan districts. He thought the noble Lord could not at least object to that principle. It had been shown within a brief period, that an enormous number of patients in one asylum might exist almost without restraint—that the chains and manacles which used to be hung upon the limbs of these unfortunate persons, might be entirely laid aside, merely by the appointment of an additional number of keepers and intelligent and humane superintendants. He alluded to the treatment of lunatics in the asylum of that county (Middlesex), where the magistrates had so conducted themselves as to deserve the admiration of every one. In that asylum there were nearly a thousand patients, yet not one was fastened to his bed or bad a chain upon his limbs. He entreated the House to observe the operation of the law as regarded lunatics. Suppose he had a relation who was possessed of a large fortune—he perceived certain eccentricities in the conduct of that individual. From the great affection he had for that relative, and the still greater affection he had for his property, he causes a commission of lunacy to be issued out, and discovering him to be insane, places him in confinement. Then what motive of action was given, under the present system, to the person under whose charge the lunatic was placed? Why, it called into operation that principle of selfishness
696
common to human nature. The proprietor of the asylum would argue that he got 400 l. a year for the charge of the gentleman so long as he remained under that roof; and if he recovered, then he (the proprietor) would lose that annual amount. Suppose a gentleman was to go to a doctor, and say, "My liver is diseased, and so long as it remains so I will give you 100 l. a year." What motive of action in such a case would be given to the doctor? The House ought to set about to discover means of remedy for these things, and a system of investigation and control should be instituted which would prevent the possibility of such atrocious practices being continued. The law which the noble Lord sought to prolong had certainly in some respects its merits, but they fell short of what the public had a right to expect, and common sense—the common principles of justice—dictated the necessity for some effectual remedy for the existing evils. He asked the House to prolong the law only for one year, because in that case he was sure that the hon. Member for Lambeth, or the hon. Member for Dumfries, would next Session move for a Committee of inquiry; whereas if the law were to be prolonged for so long a period as that proposed, it would be a clog upon investigation. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that the words "one year," be substituted for "three years."
Mr. Hawesseconded the amendment. He agreed with his hon. Friend, that there were great abuses and vices in the present system, that the lunatic asylums of the country were very imperfect, and that the public had a very insufficient knowledge of the manner in which they were conducted. There was no proper check upon them. The details that were brought to light some time ago, relative to the management of the Hereford Lunatic asylum, were perfectly disgusting. He wished to direct the attention of the House to that part of the act which enabled the keeper of an asylum to receive lunatics as patients. Under special circumstances, a single apothecary might consign a man to confinement for ever. [No, no] It was so; and if that man were a pauper, not even the intervention of an apothecary was necessary, but a justice of the peace could, by his certificate, consign him to a lunatic asylum, under certain circumstances. The noble Lord said not for ever, and he admitted that the noble Lord.

697
was right as regarded the metropolitan districts, but that did not apply to the provinces. Let a man be once sent to a lunatic asylum, and suppose him to be of a nervous temperament, and unable to stand those formidable examinations he had to undergo before medical men, who were generally, and not unnaturally, prepossessed with the conviction that a patient confined in the asylum must necessarily be insane, and his chances for emancipation were rather remote. He did not wish to refer unnecessarily to the case of the Hereford Asylum, but he was bound to say, that the scenes disclosed there, were such as to shock every humane mind, and they called loudly for an amendment in the system. All that the hon. Member for Finsbury sought was a diminution of the term for which the law was to be renewed. He did not think that a Committee of that House was the best instrument to effect the object desired; but he conceived it was a case peculiarly belonging to the executive Government. If the noble Lord would turn his mind seriously to the whole subject before next Session, he would have the opportunity of working out an inestimable benefit. He trusted, however, that the Government would take up the subject, for it was too complicated for any single Member of that House.
Lord Ashleyhad not thought, that a discussion would have arisen upon the subject, or he would have come down to the House better prepared to bear his part in it. The commissioners had done all that could be reasonably expected of them, and he begged to observe, that the act under which they derived their powers was not an act directing the methods to be employed in the cure of patients; but it was an act for the purpose of controlling those enormous abuses which, from time to time, had been laid before Committees of that House—abuses under which persons were very easily confined in lunatic asylums, but which rendered it almost impossible for them to obtain their liberty. Such was the state of the law when the present act was introduced. He wished to inform the House that the commissioners had made periodical reports to the Lord Chancellor, and it was not long ago that it was determined by the commission that he (Lord Ashley) should be called upon to lay those reports from the year 1835 upon the table of that House, that the country might see the
698
progress that had been made, and pass an opinion upon the merits of the commission. The powers of the commission were very limited, they were powers of control, and no more; and a great deal that had been done, had been effected by advice and suggestion, and not by authority. The commissioners, indeed, possessed two powers, one of which was the right of refusing licences, but those powers were only to be resorted to in extreme cases, and there had been only one, or at the most, two instances, in which those powers had been exercised. If he thought, that the renewal of the act for the time that he sought precluded all consideration for the amendment of the law, then he should be ready to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, but he assured the House that the commissioners had great difficulty in keeping the lunatic asylums within due bounds and in proper order; and if the existence of the commission was to be terminated within twelve months, and the proprietors of those houses were aware of that fact, the difficulties already experienced would be greatly aggravated. The commissioners had agreed that it would be desirable to meet before the next Session of Parliament, to consult as to what amendments in the system might be proposed. Within the metropolis and seven miles around, the commissioners had, he would venture to say, brought the asylums into a most complete state of order. It was a rule with the commissioners, when they visited these asylums, to omit none where a single human being was confined. The provincial asylums had no visitation whatever that was worthy the name, and the best proof of that was, that, whereas the commissioners ought to be supplied with a correct return of all those asylums—the fact was, there were many in the country of which they had no knowledge at all. It was almost impossible, under the present system, to carry out the intentions of the act with respect to those provincial asylums. There was a defect in the present system of the treatment of lunatics to which he wished to allude, while, at the same time, he confessed he did not know how to remedy it by any legislative enactment. But it showed the necessity for some amendment in the system. No sooner was a person confined in a lunatic asylum—he spoke, of course, not without exceptions, but yet as a pretty general rule—than from that hour it

699
appeared as though all the relatives, even the nearest, of that unfortunate individual, thought themselves discharged from the solemn duty of watching over him. It appeared, indeed, as if insanity was a visitation of Providence, so awful and overwhelming, that it produced a withering and deadly effect upon the minds, not only of the unhappy patient, but of ail who were connected with him, so as to incline them not only to get rid of his society, but to wipe out, if possible, ail memory of him. That was an additional reason why not only in the metropolitan districts, but in the provinces, there should be instituted a strict, vigorous, and most searching investigation, that should compel relatives to come forward and take upon themselves that solemn duty, of the extended neglect of which he could convey to the House no accurate notion. He believed all parties concurred in the opinion that no blame was chargeable upon the commissioners. The only question, however, before the House was, as regarded the term for which the Act was to be renewed; and, he assure the House, so far as he was concerned, that if they thought proper to sanction the renewal of the commission for three years, which he considered absolutely necessary, all the energies and abilities he could command, should be freely and readily devoted to the subject. He thought the commissioners would be enabled to propound to the House a scheme whereby the management of lunatics throughout the country should be put upon one general and uniform fooling; and, above all, by which a complete and effective system of visitation should be established over all private asylums.
Sir R. H. Inglissaid, he had listened to the speech just delivered with the deepest attention, marked as it was at once with that simple clearness, and that sincerity of feeling, which characterized his noble Friend's addresses on such subjects. The only observation he had to make was, that he trusted the country visitations were not altogether and universally mockeries. He fell great pleasure in declaring, that his noble Friend had earned one title more honourable than all others—that of the friend to the friendless—the sympathizer with every sufferer.
Lord Ashleybriefly explained, that there were exceptions in the country visitations.
Mr. Wakleysaid, he for one bore warm
700
and willing testimony to the zeal and energy which the noble Lord had manifested in this cause. It was one thing, however, to admire the noble Lord's character, and another to approve of his propositions. The noble Lord's speech had throughout indicated a deficiency of authority and power in the commissioners. The noble Lord no doubt would be disposed to fulfil his promise to give the whole subject careful consideration, and to propose a general plan. But the fact of the act being renewed only for one year would have this effect—it would stimulate he would not say the noble Lord, for he required no stimulus, but those with whom he was associated, of whom he confessed he had some distrust, though of the noble Lord he had none. The very fact of the act having again speedily to come before Parliament would serve to keep up their attention and their energies on the subject, and prevent their sympathies from sleeping supposing they were disposed to allow them. Let the House well recollect what the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government said when the noble Lord the Member for the city had proposed the renewal of the Poor-law commission for ten years. The right hon. Baronet said, "No; when we have such a commission as this, the oftener it is brought under the revision of Parliament the better; it will be wiser to renew it for a shorter period." So said he as to this lunacy commission. He had made no attack upon that commission; he might have said things which he chose to withhold for the present, but, at all events, it was an amazingly well paid commission. The professional men received one guinea per hour for the time they devoted themselves to their duty, exclusive of all travelling expenses, and he thought that was remarkably good pay. But it was questionable whether a body of not more than twenty, nor less than fifteen, was one properly constituted to conduct such proceedings as those which were imposed upon the lunatic commission. He thought something much better than such a board might be constituted. He believed if there was but one person appointed who should be obliged to devote the whole of his time to these particular duties, receiving a sufficient salary, and alone responsible to that House and to the public, that much more efficient services would be rendered, and

701
that the unfortunate lunatics would receive milder, kinder, and more generous treatment in the asylums. He contended that the noble Lord had, by his speech, completely made out a case for the shorter period of renewal, and had proved beyond a doubt, that the case could not too soon come before Parliament. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department would at once see the necessity for doing something, and lie (Mr. Wakley) trusted the whole case would soon be brought under the searching investigation of that right lion. Gentleman. Upon a matter of this kind there could be no party feeling, and the amendment he had proposed had been submitted to the House without any local or private spirit or interest, and he trusted the House would decide in favour of the shorter term of renewal.
Lord Ashleywished it to be understood that he received no remuneration for his services.
Mr. Wakleyexplained that he had spoken of the professional persons only— the physicians and barristers. Those persons, he repeated, received one guinea per hour, besides travelling expenses, for the time they devoted to an inquiry, and he believed the act put no limitation on the time they might occupy.
Sir James Grahamhaving been appealed to, would offer a very few words to the notice of the committee. The subject was of the gravest character, and the discussion must touch deeply the feelings and sympathies of every humane man. He agreed most cordially with the hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford, that amidst the many claims which his noble Friend had established upon the gratitude of the nation, there was none that had better earned for him the title of the friend of the afflicted and the unprotected, than the active part he had taken in the distressing duty with which he had associated himself. The point immediately before the committee was in itself, however, very narrow. It was simply, whether the term of the renewal of the act should be for a greater or a less period. He perfectly agreed with the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Finsbury, that a very salutary effect was produced in bringing the conduct of commissioners, and indeed, all other public servants, frequently under the revision of that House. But in the present instance, the only question was, what limitation of lime should be taken as
702
rendering the revision sufficiently frequent. He certainly thought, that an annual revision would be more frequent than was necessary. If it should be deemed requisite to come to Parliament for an extension of power, he, after carefully considering the subject, and availing himself of the advice of his noble Friend (Lord Ashley), and the experience of the commission under which his noble Friend acted, should be prepared to accede to any proposition that the humanity of the subject might seem to demand. After the assurance that had been given by his noble Friend, he thought there could be no impropriety in now renewing the operation of the act for three years.
Amendment negatived.
Bill went through the committee.
House resumed.—Report to be received.
Adjourned.